NOI

TA

TR

OP

SN

AR

TF

OT

NE

MT

RA

PE

DN

AGI

HCI

MFiscal Years 2008-2011Fiscal Years 2008-2011Fiscal Years 2008-2011

tate

Michigan Department of Transportation

Improving Michigan’s total transportation systemby efficiently delivering transportation products,services and information.

Designed by Graphics /planning/STIPcover/STIPcover07.cdr (1/08 CJ)

RECYCLED

PAPER

RECYCLED

PAPER

FY 2008-2011 State Transportation Improvement Program

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 2

STATEWIDE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROCESS ..................................................... 3 Certification Statement........................................................................................................ 3 The Planning Process Under 23 U.S.C./SAFETEA-LU ...................................................... 4 State Long-Range Transportation Plan 2005-2030 ............................................................ 5 MDOT Five-Year Transportation Program 2007-2011........................................................ 7 Metropolitan Transportation Planning ................................................................................. 10 MDOT-MPO Cooperative Planning Process....................................................................... 12 Rural Task Forces............................................................................................................... 13 Small Urban Program.......................................................................................................... 13

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT .......................................................................................................... 14 Public Review of the Draft STIP Report ............................................................................. 17

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE .................................................................................................. 18

AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................ 25

FINANCING .............................................................................................................................. 25 Financial Resources ........................................................................................................... 26 Operations and Maintenance.............................................................................................. 28 Construction in Advance of Apportionment......................................................................... 29 Financial Constraint ............................................................................................................ 34

PROJECTS............................................................................................................................... 40

APPENDICES Appendix A: Map of MDOT Region Offices and Service Centers Appendix B: MDOT Region Offices. Appendix C: MDOT Transportation Service Centers Appendix D: Metropolitan Planning Organizations Appendix E: Rural Task Forces Appendix F: Small Urban Areas Appendix G: Media Outlets Appendix H: General Program Accounts Appendix I: Primary Work Types Appendix J: Primary Work Type Descriptions Appendix K: Funding Codes Appendix L: Highway Programs Appendix M: Transit Programs Appendix N: Glossary Appendix O: Revenue Estimates

2008-2011 State Transportation Improvement Program Page 2

INTRODUCTION

The State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) is a federally mandated planning document that lists surface transportation projects that the state intends to fund with federal-aid provided under the federal-aid transportation program. The primary purpose of this document is to provide information regarding the programs and projects to which state and local transportation agencies have committed over the next four years. It verifies that new transportation resources are available and sufficient to finance these improvements.

On August 10, 2005, the President signed into law the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). This Act authorizes funding for highway roads and bridges, roadsides, non-motorized, highway safety and public transportation across the nation for federal fiscal years 2005 through 2009. Michigan's fiscal year 2008-2011 STIP was prepared in accordance with the requirements of SAFETEA-LU.

The transportation improvement projects reported in the STIP were developed in coordination with the state's Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) representing urbanized areas and with Rural Task Forces representing the state's rural areas. The planning process relies upon the participation of state and local government officials, public and private transit providers, organizations representing the customers and providers of transportation in Michigan, and the general public.

The STIP is a compilation of transportation projects that will be authorized for funding in fiscal years 2008-2011. The STIP is not a single report but is composed of 14 separate documents; 13 individual MPO Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPs) and one STIP document. The STIP lists only projects outside of the Metropolitan Area Boundaries but contains financial information for the entire state. All projects within MPO boundaries, whether under the jurisdiction of MDOT or a local transportation agency, are listed in the relevant MPO TIPs and are governed by that document. Each MPO TIP also contains financial information for the projects listed in that TIP. MPO TIPs, whether in draft or final form, are available for review and comment at the respective MPOs throughout the state. The TIPs are included in the STIP by reference. The projects included in this report are trunkline (state) projects, and local rural and small urban projects. Many local rural and small urban projects are selected through the Rural Task Force and Small Urban Program project selection processes. These projects are grouped as a single item in the STIP rather than being listed individually. This document also does not include some smaller safety and heavy maintenance projects that will be selected later this year following further analysis of highway conditions.

In addition to a listing of projects and programs, this report contains information on the federally mandated statewide and metropolitan transportation planning processes, the Michigan Department of Transportation's (MDOT) transportation goals, and the public involvement process for the STIP, and a Financial Plan that compares annual transportation resources to new commitments.

The STIP is expected to be approved by the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration by November 30, 2007. Once approved, it will serve as a four-year planning document for the state and will be periodically updated through the amendment process.

2008-2011 State Transportation Improvement Program Page 3

STATEWIDE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROCESS

CERTIFICATION

In accordance with 23 CFR 450.218, the Michigan Department of Transportation hereby certifies that the statewide transportation planning process is being carried out in accordance with all applicable requirements of:

I. 23 U.S.C. 134 and 135, 49 U.S.C. 5303 and 5304, and this part;

II. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2000d–1) and 49 CFR part 21;

III. 49 U.S.C. 5332, prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, color, creed, national origin, sex, or age in employment or business opportunity;

IV. Section 1101(b) of the SAFETEA–LU (Pub. L. 109–59) and 49 CFR part 26 regarding the involvement of disadvantaged business enterprises in USDOT funded projects;

V. 23 CFR part 230, regarding implementation of an equal employment opportunity program on Federal and Federal-aid highway construction contracts;

VI. The provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.) and 49 CFR parts 27, 37, and 38;

VII. In States containing nonattainment and maintenance areas, sections 174 and 176 (c) and (d) of the Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7504, 7506 (c) and (d)) and 40 CFR part 93;

VIII. The Older Americans Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6101), prohibiting discrimination on the basis of age in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance;

IX. Section 324 of title 23 U.S.C., regarding the prohibition of discrimination based on gender; and

X. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794) and 49 CFR part 27 regarding discrimination against individuals with disabilities.

____________________________________Susan P. Mortel, Director Bureau of Transportation Planning Michigan Department of Transportation

____________________________________Date

2008-2011 State Transportation Improvement Program Page 4

THE PLANNING PROCESS UNDER 23 U.S.C. (SAFETEA-LU)

The statewide planning process under 23 U.S.C. Section 135 (SAFETEA-LU at the time this document was written), requires “each State to carry out a continuing, cooperative, and

comprehensive statewide multimodal transportation planning process, including the development of

a long-range statewide transportation plan and statewide transportation improvement program

(STIP), that facilitates the safe and efficient management, operation, and development of surface

transportation systems that will serve the mobility needs of people and freight (including accessible

pedestrian walkways and bicycle transportation facilities) and that fosters economic growth and

development within and between States and urbanized areas, while minimizing transportation-

related fuel consumption and air pollution in all areas of the State, including those areas subject to

the metropolitan transportation planning requirements of 23 U.S.C. 134 and 49 U.S.C. 5303.”(From 23 CFR 450.200.)

23 U.S.C. 134 and 135 requires MDOT and Michigan’s twelve MPOs to each develop a long-range plan covering a minimum 20 year horizon that provides direction for the development and implementation of multimodal transportation programs. In June 2007, MDOT published the MI

Transportation Plan - Moving Michigan Forward - 2005-2030 State Long-Range Transportation

Plan (SLRP). The SLRP is the product of nearly three years of effort to identify trends that impact transportation, define a vision, establish goals and develop strategies to achieve the goals while involving the public and all transportation customers in the process. The MPOs are currently developing or just recently completed the development of long-range plans for each urbanized area. Local long-range plans, whether in draft or final form, are available for review and comment at the respective MPOs around the state.

In addition to the SLRP, Section 307 of Michigan’s annual transportation funding appropriation act requires that MDOT provide, “Before February 1 of each year…its rolling 5-year plan listing by county… all highway construction projects for the fiscal year and for all expected projects for the ensuing fiscal years.” MDOT has expanded this requirement from a “highway construction” document into a comprehensive multimodal plan. The introduction to the 2007-2011 Five-Year

Transportation Program states:

“The Five-Year Transportation Program is a continuous, interactive, transparent dialogue with our customers and stakeholders that has become the anchor of MDOT’s project development and delivery systems. The 2007-2011 Transportation Program anticipates Michigan’s evolving economic and transportation needs by first ensuring that MDOT will substantially achieve the State Transportation Commission’s 1997 system preservation goal of 90 percent of state roads and bridges in good condition by 2007 and 2008 respectively. The 2007-2011 Five-Year Transportation Program preserves and improves Michigan’s transportation network in a fiscally responsible manner. It also implements Governor Jennifer M. Granholm’s Jobs Today initiative, as well as congressionally designated funds from the recently passed federal transportation reauthorization (SAFETEA-LU), to help grow Michigan’s economy, make travel safer and improve the quality of life in Michigan communities.”

The STIP, with its associated TIPs, is a culmination of multiple transportation planning processes. The bi-annually developed STIP is the final planning document preceding the actual construction or implementation of projects. Thus, the implementation of the state’s Long-Range Plan and Five-

2008-2011 State Transportation Improvement Program Page 5

Year Transportation Plan is accomplished through a four-year STIP, which lists the projects to beimplemented and how they are to be financed. The STIP is a compilation of 13 separate programs, including 12 MPO TIPs and one non-MPO (rural) program developed by MDOT. The projects that are selected for the STIP and TIPs are the logical result of the needs and policies identified in the State Long Range Transportation Plan (SLRP), each MPO’s long-range plan and the Five-Year Transportation Plan. This STIP covers fiscal years 2008-2011 and will include by reference the FY 2008-2011 TIPs prepared by the MPO areas.

STATE LONG-RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 2005-2030

Michigan’s MI Transportation Plan - Moving Michigan Forward - 2005-2030 State Long-Range Transportation Plan (SLRP) was published in June 2007. The SLRP, is a “comprehensive,

forward looking approach to identifying and addressing the state of Michigan’s transportation needs to the year 2030.” All future transportation improvements must be consistent with this Plan.

The SLRP was coordinated with local long-range transportation plans and developed with extensive input from the general public; businesses; local, state, federal and tribal government officials; our transportation partners and all other stakeholders. In 2003 and again in 2004, MDOT held a large-scale summit meeting to initiate a dialogue with Michigan residents regarding future transportation

needs. The following long-range conceptual vision resulted:

“Michigan will lead the 21st century transportation revolution as it led innovation in the 20th

century. We will move people and goods with a safe, integrated, and efficient transportation

system that embraces all modes, is equitably and adequately funded, and socially and

environmentally responsible. Michigan’s transportation community will work together to

ensure that resources are in place to deliver the system.”

From this long-range vision, nine specific long-range vision statements were identified:

Purposeful: Michigan’s 2030 integrated transportation system will be the foundation of the state’s economic vitality and will sustain quality of life for its residents.

Prioritized: Capacity improvements will be needed, but the first priority will be physical or technological improvements to enhance efficiency, mobility and access.

Coordinated: All transportation providers will work together to address the system’s needs holistically. All modes will be maintained, preserved, operated, and protected as one system, one of the state’s most important physical assets.

Safe: Safety will be a primary goal. It will be addressed as each improvement is planned and implemented. Personal and system wide security will be enhanced, including border security.

Advanced: MDOT will embrace technology and technological development. The department will use innovation in every aspect of what it builds, how it builds, and in every service that is provided.

Integrated Choices: System integration will be achieved for both passenger and freight transportation through improvements in modal services and effective intermodal connections. The system will be responsive to the public’s demand for more transit, bicycle and pedestrian choices. The need for freight and passenger movement will be balanced, and the system will accommodate both without compromising goals for safety or economic competitiveness.

2008-2011 State Transportation Improvement Program Page 6

Appropriate to the Setting: Transportation will be integrated between modes, and also with land use, economic, and environmental systems. Transportation solutions will be regionally sensitive, sustainable, and energy efficient. Infrastructure improvements will be tailored to the community and natural setting and will be planned cooperatively so customers and partners are satisfied with the result.

Flexibly-Funded: Transportation financing will be diversified to include new methods and techniques, but public funds will remain dedicated to transportation purposes. Funding will be flexible so that money can be allocated to meet the highest priority user needs.

Responsive: MDOT will be an open and flexible organization, responsive to customer needs and with a transparent, accountable decision-making process. MDOT will be proactive, adaptable, and able to identify and respond to change as needed.

After many action team meetings, public forums and input from a variety of sources, four long-

range goals were developed:

Stewardship: Preserve transportation system investments, protect the environment, and utilize public resources in a responsible manner.

System Improvement: Modernize and enhance the transportation system to improve mobility and accessibility.

Efficient and Effective Operations: Improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the transportation system and transportation services and expand MDOT’s coordination and collaboration with partners.

Safety and Security: Continue to improve transportation safety and ensure the security of the transportation system. to change as needed.

And ultimately six key strategies to help Michigan achieve these goals were agreed to:

Focus improvements on Corridors of Highest Significance: There will never be sufficient funding to make every transportation improvement that is identified, however worthy. In order to be an appropriate steward of the public trust, and make the most effective use of limited transportation revenue, MDOT will focus on improvement to the condition and efficient operation of multi-modal corridors of highest significance to the Michigan economy.

Measure performance for all modes: MDOT’s experience establishing and achieving its goals for highway pavement and bridge condition was very successful. A similar focus must be brought to bear on highway operations, safety, and the condition and performance of other modes, by establishing targets, measuring performance, and investing appropriately to achieve improvement.

Integrate the transportation system: The public has expressed its wish for more modal choices. In the years to come, as Michigan’s population ages, single-occupancy vehicles may no longer be the most practical or preferable transportation option for many residents. Commercial traffic also increasingly uses more than one mode, and seamless connections are vital to keep the economy moving. Michigan must plan and invest now to ensure a greater array of well-connected transportation options.

Encourage Context Sensitive Solutions: MDOT will conduct dialogues with local governments, road commissions, industry groups, land use advocates, and state agencies early in a project’s planning phase. These dialogues help ensure that bridges, interchanges, bike paths and other transportation projects “fit” into their communities. To make effective decisions, transportation agencies need to consider community values while making sound design choices that follow federal standards and meet

2008-2011 State Transportation Improvement Program Page 7

or exceed regulatory agency requirements. Stakeholder input is a key component for good transportation decision-making.

Avoid, Minimize or Mitigate for Adverse Impacts: MDOT works closely with federal, state and local agencies and the twelve federally-recognized Tribes throughout the corridor and project planning processes to ensure appropriate stewardship and preservation of Michigan’s cultural and natural resources. In the initial stages of corridor planning, MDOT will confer with these partner agencies and the federally-recognized Tribes to evaluate prospective projects for potential negative impacts to property owners, archaeological and historic resources, endangered species, farmlands, public recreational properties, air quality, floodplains, wetlands, land uses, contaminated sites, and noise levels, as required by the various federal, state and local laws, rules and regulations. The MI

Transportation Plan, Environmental Technical Report includes a list of partners who assist our efforts to protect Michigan’s natural and cultural resources.

Identify appropriate funding: Current transportation revenue streams are not even sufficient over the next 30 years to sustain the good condition of highway pavement and bridges, let alone improve operations, integration among modes, or the performance of non-highway modes. Providing flexibility to invest in a range of mutually supporting and integrated modal programs will be the first step toward meeting the vision. The public supports new and innovative transportation funding solutions as necessary, but a new focus on operations and integrated transportation will help move Michigan closer to its goals regardless of the level of funding.

For further information on Michigan’s long-range transportation plan, go to http://www.michigan.gov/slrp or contact any MDOT facility (Region office, Transportation Service Center or the central office). Appendix A provides a map of MDOT offices and service centers. Appendix B and C provide contact information for each region office and TSC, respectively.

MDOT FIVE-YEAR TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM 2007-2011

The Department, at the direction of the Governor and the State Transportation Commission, has annually published a Five-Year Transportation Program since 1999. The 2007-2011 Transportation Program, published in January 2007, contains current multimodal investment strategies as well as a list of specific road and bridge projects to be undertaken during that period.

Development of the Five-Year Transportation Program is based on sound asset management principles, realistic revenue forecasts, reasonable investment strategies, extensive customer feedbackand collaboration with our partners. It is a multi-stage, year-long effort and a crucial component of the cooperative planning process as well as the basis for implementing the policies, strategies and projects identified in the State Long-Range Transportation Plan. Key steps in the development of the Five-Year Program are:

1. Public involvement and consultation throughout the process

2. Determine estimated federal and state revenue available

3. Develop investment strategies

4. Issue annual Call for Projects to MDOT Region Offices

5. Submit candidate projects

2008-2011 State Transportation Improvement Program Page 8

6. Conduct MDOT internal committee review

7. Select projects

8. Draft Transportation Program

Revenue estimates are reviewed and updated twice a year in conjunction with the Department of Treasury. MDOT’s current investment strategy focuses on the preservation of the existing system and on the delivery of a limited number of capacity improvement projects.

Project selection decisions are guided by input received throughout the planning process and made in consultation with the Rural Task Forces and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs). Factors in the project selection and review process for the Highway Capital Program include ensuring consistency with Michigan State Transportation Commission policy, compliance with standards, region and statewide goal achievement, meeting eligibility requirements, degree of project readiness, and available funding. For multi-modal programs such as aviation, bus, marine and rail, project selection differs from mode to mode, and even within modes, but essentially factors comparable to the Highway Capital Program are used.

The impact of 23 U.S.C. under SAFETEA-LU on Michigan’s program delivery must also be considered in developing the Five-Year Program. Highlights and impacts of SAFETEA-LU include:

Michigan’s donor state status has improved; the minimum guaranteed return on taxes that Michigan sends to the federal government has increased from a 90.5 percent share in 2006 to 91.5% on 2007 and 92% in 2008-2009. In other words, for every dollar Michigan send to Washington, D.C., 92 cents will be returned to Michigan.

Safety is now a separate program and funding for safety improvements is nearly doubled.

A new program improving the ability of students to walk and bike safely to school.

Emphasis on the operation and security of international border crossings.

More opportunities for innovative finance from non-traditional sources.

More transit resources for the underserved populations (rural, elderly, disabled and low-income)

The amount of earmarked funds designated for specific projects (High Priority Projects) is nearly doubled (from $11 billion in TEA-21 to $21.6 billion in SAFETEA-LU). This decreases the share of funds available for core programs (such as Interstate Maintenance), as well as undermines the federally mandated planning processes.

More emphasis on documented public involvement and consultation processes; as well as the content of the dialogue resulting from implementation of these processes

“Integrated analysis of options and tradeoffs [between and among modes] investigates how best to meet the needs of customers while responding to policy goals and objectives. Decisions on resource allocation among programs and investment options are made consistent with policy guidance and the results of alternative analyses. Once decisions on resource allocation are made, they are implemented through delivery of services and projects.” (From Five-Year Transportation Program 2007-2011.)

2008-2011 State Transportation Improvement Program Page 9

As mentioned, MDOT’s highest priorities remain preserving our existing transportation system as well as the safe operation of that system. These and other strategies guiding the preservation and development of Michigan’s transportation system include:

System Preservation - complete the implementation of Governor Granholm’s Preserve First initiative by the end of 2007. Funding under Preserve First allows MDOT to advance projects from future years to reach system condition goals. Preservation will continue to retain its emphasis once Preserve First funding is expended. MDOT’s focus will remain on repairing the worst roads and bridges first, balancing long-term fixes (reconstruction) and intermediate fixes (resurfacing and rehabilitation) with short term fixes (capital preventive maintenance) and routine maintenance (pothole patching, plowing, mowing, etc.).

Safety - focus on five safety areas: senior mobility, pedestrian, traffic operations, roadway delineation and the Safety Improvement Program. These safety enhancements will include improved driver guidance through enhanced pavement markings, signing and traffic signal visibility; warning and minimal consequences for motorists who leave the roadway; safety and operational designs to meet the unique needs of the rapidly growing elderly population; and extensive outreach to promote and implement the new federal Safe Routes to School program. Safety is an overriding concern for our transportation system and now a federally endorsed emphasis in SAFETEA-LU which nearly doubles the funding available for safety. Michigan’s transportation providers continue to be leaders in traffic safety improvements. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s 2006 Annual Assessment of Motor Vehicle

Traffic Crash Fatalities and Injuries, the total number of fatalities from motor vehicle accidents in Michigan declined from 1,129 in 2005 to 1,085 in 2006, a reduction of 44 or 3.9% statewide.

Economic Growth - implementation of Governor Granholm’s Job’s Today initiative, a three-year construction program to stimulate job and economic growth by advancing state and local preservation projects and addressing critical capacity needs. The deadline for the local element of the program was recently extended approximately six months from September 30, 2007 to April 4, 2008. A safe, well-maintained and efficient transportation system provides the backbone for all economic activity within the state of Michigan. Findings of a joint MDOT and University of Michigan economic benefits study of the 2007-2011 Five-Year Program estimate road and bridge investments will create 23,034 jobs in 2007. The study also estimates that the 2007 program will generate over $1.4 billion of Gross State Product and about $1 billion in personal income (in inflation-adjusted 2007 dollars).

Corridors of Highest Significance - implementation of projects within these corridors identified in the State Long-Range Plan. Corridors of Highest Significance link multiple activity centers where population, employment, tourism, transportation, and other economically important activities are concentrated. Corridors can be of local, regional, statewide, national, or international significance depending on what geographic areas they serve. These corridors provide the foundation for Michigan’s economy and MDOT will continue to focus investments to rebuild and modernize these roadways and the transportation facilities within them.

Border Crossings - improve Michigan’s highway and rail border crossings and their related trade corridors. A five-year strategy to systematically repair and rebuild the U.S.-Canada border infrastructure and connecting Interstate freeway system consists of three key elements: investments in border and corridor infrastructure; enhanced coordination and cooperation with federal, state, provincial, regional, and local partners; and advocacy efforts for federal policies

2008-2011 State Transportation Improvement Program Page 10

that address border and corridor infrastructure needs and improves the movement of people and goods across the U.S.-Canada border.

Other factors considered in maintaining and developing the transportation system that are evaluated in the project selection process include, but are not exclusive to, the following:

Road and Bridge Condition - continuous collection and evaluation of road and bridge conditions statewide is essential to effective asset management.

Public Involvement/Outreach - listen to the public to determine policy, projects and programsfor the transportation system. Improve dialogue with local customers and partners to encourage context sensitive solutions that meet the needs of and fit the character of each community.

Environmental Stewardship - work with state and federal resource agencies to ensure environmentally sound projects and minimize disruption to ecosystems.

Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) - continuously enhance and expand the use of this technology tool to reduce congestion, improve safety and security and expedite travel.

Multimodal Integration - consider transit, aviation, all modes of freight, ports, intercity bus, passenger rail, pedestrian and biking needs and their intermodal connectivity. Encourage alternate modes and ridesharing.

Fiscal Responsibility - continuous assessment and improvement through the use of technology, organizational streamlining, and other tools to work smarter and more efficiently.

MDOT may need to make program adjustments in order to constrain the program to revenue estimates. Because of sustained higher gasoline prices, people are traveling less. More fuel efficient vehicles and fewer miles traveled results in declining state revenue dedicated to transportation. If needed, MDOT will make necessary adjustments with extensive customer feedback as well as collaboration with its partners while remaining committed to responsible investment strategies that combine sound asset management principles.

METROPOLITAN PLANNING

In metropolitan areas exceeding 50,000 residents, 23 U.S.C. 134 requires that Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) be designated by agreement between the Governor and all affected local governments in order “to carry out a continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive multimodal

transportation planning process, including the development of a metropolitan transportation plan

and a transportation improvement program (TIP), that encourages and promotes the safe and

efficient development, management, and operation of surface transportation systems to serve the

mobility needs of people and freight (including accessible pedestrian walkways and bicycle

transportation facilities) and foster economic growth and development, while minimizing

transportation-related fuel consumption and air pollution; and (b) Encourages continued

development and improvement of metropolitan transportation planning processes guided by the

planning factors set forth in 23 U.S.C. 134(h) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(h).” (From 23 CFR 450.300.) As you can see, the metropolitan planning process parallels and compliments, and is required to be coordinated with, the statewide transportation planning process.

The metropolitan planning process requires the development of local long-range transportation plans

2008-2011 State Transportation Improvement Program Page 11

for each of Michigan's MPOs. MPO plans require greater detail than the state plan. All regionally significant projects to be implemented within the 20-year period of the MPO plans must be identified, demonstrate financial constraint, and meet air quality conformity requirements. The MPO’s plan must be updated every five years (four years in air quality nonattainment areas) and be consistent with the statewide goals and objectives established in the SLRP and by MDOT.

Each MPO is also responsible for developing a four-year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) by working with city and county transportation agencies, local transit operators and state transportation officials. The MPO planning process is used to identify needs and prioritize projects within the Metropolitan Area Boundary (MAB). MPOs are required to develop and implement a public participation plan that provides a "reasonable opportunity" for comment on the TIP “at key decision points.” Each TIP lists all federal-aid and regionally significant road, street, highway and transit projects within its boundaries whether under state or local jurisdiction. The MPO TIPs are incorporated by reference into the STIP.

Michigan’s MPOs and primary urbanized areas within those MPOs are identified below. Many smaller cities, towns and townships are also represented by the MPOs.

Table 1

Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Acronym Urbanized Area(s) Served

Battle Creek Area Transportation Study BCATS Battle Creek

Bay City Area Transportation Study BCATS Bay City

Genesee County Metropolitan Alliance GCMA Flint

Grand Valley Metro Council GVMC Grand Rapids

Kalamazoo Area Transportation Study KATS Kalamazoo

Macatawa Area Coordinating Council MACC Holland/Zeeland

Niles Area Transportation Study* NATS* Niles;* South Bend, IN

Region 2 Planning Commission R2PC Jackson

Saginaw Metropolitan Area Transportation Study

SMATS Saginaw

Southeast MI Council of Governments SEMCOGAnn Arbor; Detroit; Port Huron; Monroe County; Toledo, OH; Brighton/Howell/South Lyon

Southwestern MI Commission SWMC Benton Harbor, St. Joe & Niles

Tri-County Regional Planning Commission TCRPC Lansing

Twin Cities Area Transportation Study* TCATS* Benton Harbor, St. Joseph*

West Michigan Metropolitan Transportation Planning Program

WestPlanMuskegon, Grand Haven, North Ottawa County

* Part of SWMC

For further information on the metropolitan transportation planning process, or to review and

2008-2011 State Transportation Improvement Program Page 12

comment on a local plan, please contact the closest MPO to your area of interest. A list of contacts for each MPO with phone, fax, Web-site and e-mail is included in Appendix D.

MDOT-MPO COOPERATIVE PLANNING PROCESS

MDOT and the state’s MPOs are committed to the continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive transportation planning process in Michigan. The goal of the process is to foster closer coordination in all aspects of the transportation plan development process.

The process encourages teamwork and consensus building to identify state and local transportation needs, evaluate proposed projects to address those needs, and utilize agreed-to planning tools to reach agreement for metropolitan transportation systems. The following are the basic steps in the process:

1. Public involvement and consultation throughout the process

2. Establish goals and objectives consistent with those of the State Transportation Commission

3. Develop a statewide revenue assessment

4. Identify tools for analysis and evaluation

5. Identify and assess needs

6. Forecast MPO revenue

7. Define program structure

8. Develop criteria for project prioritization within program structure categories

9. Develop the 20 year state long-range plan/program

10. Identify five-year transportation plan

11. Develop four year STIP/TIP.

The process unifies the overall transportation planning process into one coordinated effort for long range plans; the five-year transportation program; and the STIP and associated TIPs. Periodic evaluation of the effectiveness of the process ensures that Michigan will be able to effectively and efficiently respond to current and future transportation needs.

The 2000-2020 Public Transit Strategic Plan, published in May 2001, is the product of many individuals and groups with interest and concerns about public transportation in the state. From 1999 to 2001, the Michigan transit strategic planning process sought systematically to gather information from these individuals in order to develop targeted initiatives that would advance transit in the state.This plan was the major public transit component for the SLRP.

RURAL TASK FORCES

2008-2011 State Transportation Improvement Program Page 13

Local federally funded transportation projects to be implemented in rural areas outside of MPO boundaries are selected by the applicable Rural Task Force. These task forces represent the jurisdictions providing transportation services and include cities, unincorporated villages with fewer than 5,000 residents, transit operators, county road commissions, MDOT, and, where appropriate, tribal governments.

Each Rural Task Force select projects in accordance with funding targets established by MDOT, based on projected amounts of federal and state funds to be received. Projects within the task force boundaries are also reviewed for eligibility and consistency with the criteria established for the state’s Transportation Economic Development Fund and the federal Surface Transportation Program.

The Rural Task Force projects covered in this STIP include all local surface transportation improvements to be implemented over the next four years outside the metropolitan area boundaries. These projects are typically grouped together in a single line item in the statewide section of the STIP rather than being listed individually. Projects within the MPO areas are listed individually in the appropriate TIP.

Michigan has 23 Rural Task Forces. Appendix E shows a map of the task force boundaries and provides a list of RTF contacts. For further information on Rural Task Forces, contact the appropriate RTF Chair or the statewide Rural Task Force Coordinator:

Susan RichardsonMichigan Department of Transportation Bureau of Transportation Planning P.O. Box 30050 Lansing, Michigan 48909

E-mail: richardsons@michigan.govTelephone: 517-373-1881 Fax: 517-373-9255

SMALL URBAN PROGRAM

In direct response to requests by local officials, MDOT makes funds available for eligible road and transit capital projects to cities, villages, transit agencies, and road commissions located within or serving urban areas that have a population between 5,000 and 50,000. The funds are distributed to individual small urban areas through a competitive funding program administered by the state. MDOT strives for an equitable distribution of funds statewide to ensure that eligible communities can implement meaningful projects.

Consistency with 23 U.S.C. requirements is a key component in the determination of project eligibility. All road and transit projects must be federal-aid eligible, within the federal urban area

2008-2011 State Transportation Improvement Program Page 14

boundary and consistent with regional land use and development plans. The cities must demonstrate that city, village and tribal government agencies; transit providers and county road commissions have been included as full partners in the project selection process and that the necessary public involvement has been conducted prior to project submittal. The urban area project selection committee must hold a minimum of one public meeting to allow citizens within their community to participate in the project selection and prioritization process. Small urban areas within a metropolitan area boundary (MAB) must participate in the MPO planning process as well, and gain the MPO's approval of the project before submitting it to MDOT for funding.

As of the 2000 Census, there are 55 small urban areas in Michigan (see Appendix F). For Small Urban areas that are within MABs, the MPO is indicated; all others are in non-MPO areas.

Projects selected for funding through the Small Urban Program are typically grouped together in a single line item in the statewide section of the STIP; however, each project is listed individually by fiscal year on the Small Urban Program Web-site. For further information on the Small Urban Program go to the MDOT Web-site at http://www.michigan.gov/mdot and select projects & programs, grant programs, small urban or contact the Small Urban Program Coordinator:

Susan RichardsonMichigan Department of Transportation Bureau of Transportation Planning P.O. Box 30050 Lansing, Michigan 48909

E-mail: richardsons@michigan.govTelephone: 517-373-1881 Fax: 517-373-9255

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

Public participation, or involvement, is a fundamental requirement of 23 U.S.C. and SAFETEA-LU. The act clearly requires not only a documented process but also implementation of that process for the long-range plan and the STIP. In carrying out the statewide transportation planning process,

including development of the longrange statewide transportation plan and the STIP, the State shall

develop and use a documented public involvement process that provides opportunities for public

review and comment at key decision points.” (From 23 CFR 450.210 {a})

23 U.S.C./SAFETEA-LU’s rural (non-MPO) public participation requirements are summarized below:

Use a documented process

Provide early and continuous involvement activities (of issues and decision-making process)

Provide reasonable access to information, including a Web site if feasible

2008-2011 State Transportation Improvement Program Page 15

Provide adequate notice of meetings

Provide meetings at convenient and accessible locations and times

Use visualization techniques

“Demonstrate explicit consideration and response to public input”

Seek out and consider needs of underserved (low income, minorities, etc.)

Have a documented process for consulting with non-MPO local officials

Have a documented process for consulting with tribal governments & federal land management agencies

Michigan’s Statewide Planning Process Participation Plan was updated in 2005 to comply with 23 U.S.C. under SAFETEA-LU, and published in April 2006. The Statewide Planning Process

Participation Plan (PP) provides goals, objectives, outreach strategies, a communication toolbox and effectiveness evaluation strategies for development of the state’s system-wide transportation planning documents. The state’s major planning long-range documents include the MI

Transportation Plan - Moving Michigan Forward - 2005-2030 State Long-Range Transportation

Plan, the MI Transit Strategic Plan: 2000-2020, the MI Aviation System Plan and the Midwest

Regional Rail System Plan. The mode specific plans are developed with the participation of local, metropolitan and regional planning agencies mode specific advocacy groups and other stakeholders.

“MDOT’s goal, through this plan, is to provide the highest quality participation possible for transportation decision-making. This can only be achieved when customers are identified and brought into the planning process. To achieve this goal, major planning and program development objectives include:

1. Solicit public participation in each phase of the statewide planning process.

2. Seek broad identification and representative involvement of customers and users of all transportation modes.

3. Utilize effective and equitable avenues for distributing information and receiving comments.

4. Provide educational materials and design participation initiatives that will support and encourage effective participation.

5. Maintain and develop staff expertise in all aspects of participation.

6. Support and encourage continuous improvement in the methods used to meet the public need for information and involvement.”

Further information on the state’s public participation plan can be obtained from MDOT’s Web-site at http://www.michigan.gov/mdot. Select projects & programs, strategic planning programs then public participation plan.

MDOT implements the Statewide Planning Process Participation Plan through a variety of public participation activities throughout the development of multiple planning documents. As mentioned

previously, the STIP is the final product of multiple planning processes. While transportation

2008-2011 State Transportation Improvement Program Page 16

planning is a continuous and ongoing process, it is essentially initiated with the development of the State Long Range Transportation Plan.

The development of the current SLRP kicked off in December 2003 with a large-scale “Transportation Summit: Connecting Michigan.” Nine work groups were established and met monthly to discuss specific issues. A second Transportation Summit was held in December 2004 where the work groups reported on their progress. A variety of public meetings were then held to solicit input from the general public, county road commissions, cities and villages, metropolitan planning organizations, regional planning agencies, tribal governments, public transit agencies and other stakeholders. In November and December of 2006, the third and final round of SLRP workshops provided additional opportunities for participation. In addition to public events, three telephone surveys were conducted between February 2006 and May 2007. Once the draft SLRP was prepared a 45-day public review period was conducted from March to May, 2007.

Further documentation of the state’s public participation effort for the SLRP can be obtained from MDOT’s Web-site at http://www.michigan.gov/mdot. Select projects & programs, strategic planning programs then state long range plan, or click on any of the following links:

• Public Comment on the Draft Report, June 2007• Government-to-Government Consultation with Native American Tribes• Public Open House Meeting Results - Round 2, August 2006• EAG and Stakeholder workshop summary, June 2006• Stakeholder Interviews Results• Public Participation Plan

The Department’s Five-Year Transportation Program is the second product of Michigan’s transportation planning process. While the SLRP and STIP are federally mandated, the 5YTP is a state requirement yet aids MDOT in complying with federal law. The development of the 5YTP solicits public involvement through public forums and listening sessions; the Rural Task Force and Small Urban project selection process; and through the metropolitan continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive transportation planning process. Between October 1, 2006 and August 6, 2007 five listening sessions were held in southeast Michigan and 13 additional public meetings were held statewide. In addition to these efforts, MDOT conducted nine public hearings and focusing on regional or corridor issues.

The Department’s annual Five-Year Transportation Program planning process forms the foundation upon which the STIP is developed. The STIP is the final planning document preceding the actual construction or implementation of projects. Opportunities for public involvement are provided throughout the project selection process at local, regional and state levels. This cooperative effort includes, but is not limited to, open meetings at the state and local level where project selection and programming decisions are publicly considered, opportunities to comment on proposed projects at city council and city manager meetings, and public notices in local newspapers throughout the state

2008-2011 State Transportation Improvement Program Page 17

requesting public comment on proposed projects. A review of MDOT’s press releases between October 1, 2006 and August 6, 2007 reveal that, in addition to those public participation opportunities outlined above for the SLRP and 5YTP, the following public meetings were conducted: ten for Environmental Assessment studies; six regarding specific corridors and 36 meetings for specific projects. Obviously these latter are project specific planning rather than system-wide, however, the public still has the opportunity to provide input on other transportation issues at these meetings.

Michigan takes pride in being a leader in its commitment to involve “citizens, affected public agencies, representatives of public transportation employees, freight shippers, private providers of transportation, representatives of users of public transportation, representatives of users of pedestrian walkways and bicycle transportation facilities, representatives of the disabled, providers of freight transportation services and other interested parties” in system-wide planning, project selection processes, project level planning, and decision-making associated with these efforts. In developing the STIP, state officials worked cooperatively with local officials, public and private transportation providers and interested citizens. Many of the projects included in the STIP are the result of numerous public information meetings and hearings, as well as requests by local officials and the public for specific transportation improvements.

The projects that are selected for the STIP and TIPs are the logical result of the needs, policies and projects identified in the State Long Range Transportation Plan, each MPO’s long-range plan and the Five-Year Transportation Program. The STIP is the vehicle through which the SLRP and 5YTP are implemented. Throughout this entire process, public involvement remains a continuous process and is paramount in delivering the transportation programs that meet Michigan’s needs now and in the future.

PUBLIC REVIEW OF THE DRAFT STIP

MDOT provided the public with a preview of a draft list of projects proposed for inclusion in the FY 2008-2011 STIP. On July 17, 2007, MDOT issued a statewide press release to over 400 news organizations announcing this information was available on MDOT’s Web site at www.michigan.gov/stip for public comment through August 17, 2007. The press release was sent to the Department’s standard media list as well as minority media providers (see Appendix G). A total of two comments were received and addressed.

Prior to final approval of the FY 2008-2011 STIP by the federal agencies, a public review of this draft report in its entirety was conducted and, based on the comments received. In early September 2007, the entire draft report was posted on MDOT’s Web site at www.michigan.gov/stip for a minimum of two weeks for public comment. MDOT received three comments: a request for the reconstruction of I-69 in Lapeer County from M-15 to M-24; a request for widening a segment on M-24, Metamora Township, Lapeer County; and a request for a turn lane so that a business park will have access from all directions off of US-3 in Pere Marquette Charter Township, Mason county. and interchange will continue to accept and address comments as they are received. MDOT will continue to accept and address comments as they are received. You may comment on this report in

several ways:

2008-2011 State Transportation Improvement Program Page 18

Visit www.michigan.gov/stip and select the MDOT-STIP-Comments@michigan.gov link under “Tell us what you think” to send an e-mail to us.

Send an e-mail directly to MDOT-STIP-Comments@michigan.gov.

Contact the appropriate MDOT Region Office (see Appendix B), MDOT Transportation Service Center (see Appendix C), MPO (see Appendix D) or Rural Task Force (see Appendix F).

Visit MDOT’s central office or contact the central office by mail, phone, fax, or email:

Michigan Department of Transportation Phone (517) 335-1510 Statewide Planning Division Fax (517) 373-9255 P.O. Box 30050 e-Mail: lindstroma@michigan.gov 425 West Ottawa Street Lansing MI 48909

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

In February of 1994 President Clinton signed Executive Order 12898. Its major goal is to ensure that no minority or low-income population suffers a “disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects” due to any “programs, policies, and activities” undertaken by a federal agency or any agency receiving federal funds. As the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) does receive federal funding, the above-mentioned order applies to its programs, policies and activities. Environmental Justice (EJ), however, is not a new requirement. In fact, since no additional legislation accompanied the President’s order, its authority rests in Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and MDOT has long considered these principles in its planning processes.

These requirements can be met in a variety of ways and on a variety of levels. MDOT’s first responsibility, when planning specific projects, is to identify populations that will be affected by a given project. If a disproportionate effect is anticipated, mitigation procedures must be followed. If mitigation options do not sufficiently eliminate the disproportionate effect, reasonable alternatives should be discussed and, if necessary, implemented. Disproportionate effects are those effects which are appreciably more severe for any EJ group or predominantly borne by a single EJ group.

In addition to a project-by-project analysis of Environmental Justice, MDOT is responsible for ensuring that its overall program does not disproportionately distribute benefits or negative effects to any target EJ population. Analysis at the statewide level examines the total negative and positive outcomes of transportation projects to see whether there is a disproportionate effect. This process involves establishing a baseline (a geographic representation of the location of those populations mentioned in the executive order) and then examining MDOT’s program as a whole as it relates to these areas.

For purposes of this document, analysis is limited to the non-MPO areas of the state. Each MPO TIP contains an EJ analysis of all projects within its Metropolitan Area Boundary. Because the negative effects of projects are generally examined at the individual project level, the analysis in this report focuses on the benefits of transportation improvements to an area. For this analysis the following definitions were used:

2008-2011 State Transportation Improvement Program Page 19

Low-Income: a person whose median household income is at or below the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services poverty guidelines.

Minority:

1. Black or African American. A person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa.

2. Hispanic. A person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race.

3. Asian. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia or the Indian subcontinent.

4. American Indian and Alaskan Native. A person having origins in any of the original people of North, Central or South America and who maintain tribal affiliation or community attachment.

5. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands.

Low income and minority thresholds were developed using 2000 census data for low-income groups and for minority groups. MPO populations were not included in development of the thresholds since we are analyzing the rural, non-MPO areas of the state. Any zone with a minority group population exceeding the statewide non-MPO average and a low-income population above the statewide non-

MPO average was considered an EJ zone. Those areas were mapped and overlaid on the projects contained in the FY 2008-2011 STIP. These maps, displaying all non-MPO EJ zones and all non-MPO projects, are shown on pages 22-24. For the sake of clarity, all rural (non-MPO), Rural Task Force and Small Urban projects were combined into one category on the maps included in this report.

The analysis addresses two fundamental Environmental Justice principles:

1. To avoid, minimize, or mitigate disproportionate high and adverse human health or environmental effects on low-income and minority populations.

2. To prevent the denial of, reduction in, or significant delay in the receipt of benefits by low- income and minority populations.

Table 2 on the following page summarizes the results of the analysis of all non-MPO projects and costs in relation to all non-MPO EJ zones. For the sake of consistency and comparison with the FY 2006-2008 STIP EJ analysis, Rural Task Force projects and Small Urban projects are listed separately.

Disproportionate adverse effects

Adverse effects, as defined in the final US DOT Order on Environmental Justice (DOT Order 5610.2) contained in the Federal Register in 1997, include but are not limited to: bodily impairment, illness or death; air, noise, or water pollution and soil contamination; destruction or disruption of

2008-2011 State Transportation Improvement Program Page 20

Table 2

FY 2008-2011 STIP Environmental Justice Analysis

PROJECTS

Type of Project Total Projects Total Projects in EJ Zones

Percent Projects In EJ Zones

Trunkline (MDOT) 243 210 86%

Rural Task Force (Local) 366 303 83%

Small Urban (Local) 73 62 85%

Total 682 575 84%

COSTS

Type of Project Total Cost Total Costs in EJ Zone

Percent Costs In EJ Zones

Trunkline (MDOT) $595,859,797 $460,120,245 77%

Rural Task Force (Local) $107,809,132 $80,255,000 74%

Small Urban (Local) $25,077,004 $21,250,000 85%

Total $728,745,933 $561,625,245 77%

natural resources or aesthetic values; disruption of community cohesion; disruption of the availability of public and private facilities and services; displacement of persons, farms, non-profit organizations; increased traffic congestion.

Review of the total 682 trunkline and local non-MPO projects that comprise the proposed FY 2008-2011 STIP reveals that the majority fall within the preservation category. The remainder of the projects consist of bridge, passing relief lane, roadsides, economic development projects as well as minor center left turn widening projects.

The proposed facility improvements located in minority or low-income populations are similar in design and comparative impacts to those located in non-minority or non-low-income populations. With respect to the relatively few improve and expand projects, they are located in mostly rural, low-population areas thereby minimizing potential adverse effects such as noise, vibration, displacement of persons or businesses, or disruption of community cohesion. All displacements and acquisition of right-of-way will be at the project development level and will follow the appropriate state and federal procedures including the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act to minimize the impacts on affected individuals and businesses. Therefore, it has been determined that any adverse impacts associated with the proposed system improvements do not reach the disproportionately high and adverse standard.

Receipt of beneficial effects

As Table 2 shows, the FY 2008-2011 STIP includes a total of 682 projects located outside MPOs, of which 575 (84%) are located within or adjacent to or slightly touches an established EJ zones. Of the total projects, 243 trunkline (MDOT) projects with approximately 86 percent benefiting EJ

2008-2011 State Transportation Improvement Program Page 21

zones, 366 Rural Task Force (local) projects with about 83 percent serving EJ zones, and 73 Small Urban (local) projects of which 85 percent serve EJ zones.

Project costs total in FY 2008-2011 is over $728.7 million ($728,745,933), of which $561,625,245 (77%) will benefit EJ zones. Of the total project costs, 65 percent are trunkline (MDOT) costs with approximately 77 percent benefiting EJ zones, 11 percent are Rural Task Force (local) costs with about 74 percent serving EJ zones, and two point three percent are Small Urban (local) costs of which 85 percent benefit EJ zones. A significant number of projects and associated project costs are located within or adjacent to areas established as EJ zones. Therefore, it has been determined that low income or minority populations are not being denied receipt of projects but will positively benefit from the economic impact of these proposed transportation improvements.

Table 3 shows the population that is served by transportation improvement projects in selected geographic areas within the State of Michigan. Since the 2000 Bureau of Census statistics is the most current population figures, this table remains the same as the figures in the FY 2006-2008 STIP. The total population of non-MPO EJ zones was calculated as 1,741,833 or 18 percent of Michigan’s population. In other words, 18 percent of Michigan’s citizens are considered low-income or a minority. Of the total non-MPO population, 69 percent reside in EJ zones. Seventy-five percent of all non-MPO Census Block Groups qualify for EJ status.

Table 3

2000 Census Data for FY 2008-2011 STIP EJ Analysis

Geographic Area Total Population Percent of Total

PopulationTotal Number of Census

Block Groups*

In the State of Michigan 9,938,444 100% 8410

In MPOs 7,599,927 75% 6370

In Non-MPO Areas 2,338,517 24% 2040

In Non-MPO EJ Zones 1,741,833 18% 1506

* A Census Block Group is the smallest geographic level for which EJ-related Census data is available.

Environmental Justice ensures that the potential impacts and benefits derived from transportation services are provided equitably to every population in Michigan. Through careful planning and proactive involvement, MDOT guarantees the highest quality transportation services to all of Michigan’s citizens, regardless of race or income.

These maps display the location of all the state and local highway projects included in this document. Projects are displayed either as a colored star or a colored line segments. Stars represent projects at asingle location such as an intersection; a line segment represents projects that are a linear in nature,such as a highway between two intersecting roads. Each color represents the year of project implementation.

2008-2011 State Transportation Improvement Program Page 22

DOWNLOAD ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ZONE MAPS:

Rural Projects in Relation to Environmental Project Zones, Northern Lower PeninsulaFile size 2.4 MB

Rural Projects in Relation to Environmental Project Zones, Southern Lower PeninsulaFile size 4 MB

Rural Projects in Relation to Environmental Project Zones, Upper PeninsulaFile size 1.4 MB

2008-2011 State Transportation Improvement Program Page 25

AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS

Transportation Conformity analysis is a method of determining the air quality impacts of transportation plans (TIPs, LRPs and STIPs) against baselines or budgets which are used to show that there are no increases to ozone precursors or harmful regulated emissions resulting from implementation of the plans. Under applicable National Ambient Air Quality Standards, counties which are or have been classified as non-attainment or re-designated to attainment/maintenance have continuing mandatory conformity analysis requirements under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.

The State of Michigan has non-attainment areas under the 8 hour Ozone Standards published in 2004 as well as attainment/maintenance areas.

Of the 25 Michigan counties in non-attainment or attainment/maintenance areas, only the following counties have STIP related projects: Allegan, Benzie, Berrien, Calhoun, Cass, Huron, Mason, Ottawa, Van Buren, Lenawee, and Lapeer. The remaining counties (Clinton, Eaton, Genesee, Ingham, Kent, Kalamazoo, Livingston, Macomb, Monroe, Muskegon, Oakland, St. Clair, Washtenaw, Wayne) have applicable MPO TIP or LRP documents included in this STIP by reference. Appropriate analysis is conducted as part of the planning process for each MPO TIP or LRP. The following counties also have both STIP and TIP projects: Allegan, Berrien, Calhoun, Cass, and Ottawa.

The projects in the Allegan county non-attainment area and the projects in the Benzie, Huron, and Mason attainment/maintenance areas are exempt from conformity analysis as determined by the appropriate inter-agency work groups. If future capacity expansion projects are amended into the STIP, then appropriate air quality conformity runs will be submitted for the STIP as needed or as determined by the Rural Task Force committees in cooperation with MDOT, FHWA, and EPA. Berrien, Calhoun, Cass, Ottawa, Van Buren, Lenawee and Lapeer counties complete and submit their conformity analysis with their respective attainment/maintenance areas. Allegan county is a non-attainment area, and conformity analysis for Allegan county is submitted with the Holland MPO’s Long Range Transportation Plan.

The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) new eight hour Ozone Standard requires all of Michigan’s 25 counties in non-attainment to conduct conformity analysis. All counties covered by the STIP document were found to conform in accordance with the Michigan Conformity State Implementation Plan (SIP) and all applicable state and federal statutes, rules, and requirements.

FINANCING

The State Transportation Improvement Program is a list of projects to be initiated over a four year period by the state and local agencies which have legal responsibility to build, operate, and maintain the state’s highway, road, street, and public transit systems. The STIP also verifies that financial resources are sufficient to deliver the program contain in the STIP and associated MPO TIPs. The total capital investment in the transportation system for the four year period, including the programs

2008-2011 State Transportation Improvement Program Page 26

in this report and the referenced metropolitan area TIPs, will be over $6.2 billion. These projects are financed with a combination of federal, state and local funds; are required by federal law to be consistent with state and metropolitan area long-range plans and are financially constrained by fiscal year. This STIP demonstrates that there are enough new resources available each year to fund the projects to be implemented each year.

Financial constraint is a comparison of total new resources, or revenue, with total new commitments, or estimated costs. The financial analysis is a planning tool providing a benchmark or frame of reference for delivering the transportation program; it is not a budget or accounting tool. At any given time, annual revenue is compared to the total estimated cost of new projects. If total new commitments exceed total new resources, then an amendment is required to reduce commitments or identify additional sources of revenue.

The major objectives of financial constraint are to:

establish priorities to maintain the program within estimated available revenues

be consistent with all applicable laws and regulations

be simple and easy to understand

be consistent with MDOT business practices

maintain flexibility for the MPOs by establishing requirements for demonstrating financial constraint but enabling the MPOs to elaborate as desired. While all agencies must report constraint using the same template (in order to facilitate the roll up of the data for the statewide constraint demonstration), the MPOs may modify the content and/or presentation of this information for local purposes.

FINANCIAL RESOURCES

There are two major funding sources available for transportation programs: the Michigan Transportation Fund (MTF) comprised primarily of state gas tax and vehicle registration fees, and the Federal-aid Highway Program funded from the portion of the federal gas tax that is returned to Michigan. MDOT resources include not only MTF and federal funds but also bond funds and miscellaneous revenue such as billboard, transport, and utility permits; excess property sales and investment income. In addition, Federal Transit Funds comprise approximately ten percent of the estimated revenues.

A portion of the MTF is allocated to debt service, the Michigan Department of Natural Resource’s (MDNR) Recreation Improvement Fund and the Comprehensive Transportation Fund that funds public transit programs. The remainder is distributed according to Public Act 51 among the cities, counties, and MDOT. Under Michigan law, 25 percent of the state’s federal-aid is allocated to local programs and the remaining 75 percent to MDOT programs. Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ), federal bridge, transportation enhancement, discretionary, and congressionally designated funds (earmarks) are excluded from the calculation of the 25 percent local share.

2008-2011 State Transportation Improvement Program Page 27

In 2001 and 2002, a financial workgroup comprised of representatives from the MPOs and MDOT addressed how to display financial constraint.

In 2006 the MPOs and MDOT discussed possible growth rates for use in the FY 2008-2011 STIP. We considered that we have used 2% in the past and discussed using the historical state and federal revenue rates. The historical rates produced varying higher growth rates. A growth rate that is somewhat less than these historical rates allows for better flexibility should the future incur a shortfall in revenue. In addition, the program is developed based on contract authority, but the obligation limit for SAFETEA-LU is below 90 percent. We also took into consideration the possible impacts of the ongoing rescissions as well as the FY 2009 rescission. Moreover, the significant number of earmarks in the law meant that everyone did not receive equal access to the increase in funds promised by SAFETEA-LU. Using a conservative growth rate makes the program more realistic, especially since we are using estimated project costs, estimated revenues, the FY 2009 rescission is looming and there is not a clear indication of the level of funding that will be made available after SAFETEA-LU expires.

We agreed to the following course of action for revenue forecasting:

MDOT projects both Act 51 and federal revenues.

The federal portion of the forecast assumes that further federal legislation will be passed and the funding will remain essentially the same. It is assumed that Michigan will continue to receive roughly the same share of funds that it has received historically. A 2% growth factor is used for each future year using FY 2008 as a base.

The state portion of the forecast assumes that Public Act 51 of 1951 will remain in place. These funds are assumed to grow at a rate of 2% annually. The State Trunkline Fund provides monies for road operations and maintenance, and construction. The State Comprehensive Transportation Fund provides revenues for both transit operating and capital cost and is assumed to grow at a 2% rate annually.

The source of other estimated local funds and growth rates will be included in the appropriate MPO TIP.

Further information is available in Appendix O, which includes the following tables:

1. An estimate of the federal funds that will be available to carry out the program by MPO and the rural (non-MPO) area.

2. The estimated state revenue to carry out the MDOT portion of the program.

3. The estimated state revenue to carry out the local program is available in the MPO TIPs and the Michigan Transportation Fund Annual Report.

The process for estimating year of expenditure project construction costs for this STIP were developed by MDOT in consultation with and concurrence from the MPOs through the MPO organization, the Michigan Transportation Planning Association. FHWA had prepared an annual list of construction costs and annual cost increase factors but is discontinuing this document. MDOT uses the Consumer Price Index-All Urban Consumers Labor Statistics, the 1980-2003, 2004-2005, and 2006 FHWA Federal Aid Highway Construction Index for Michigan and its own records of construction costs to develop cost growth factors for the MDOT regions. Some local entities have

2008-2011 State Transportation Improvement Program Page 28

used sources such as the Engineering News Record to develop their own growth factors. Although rates may vary by year, history has shown that they have been close to the actual increase in the construction price index. The committee did not see a reason other than local preference to individually develop factors. MDOT developed factors were acceptable.

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE

A key strategy in delivering products and services to meet our customers’ most important needs is to focus the organization on protecting and optimizing the efficiency of the existing system. This strategy has resulted in the commitment during the four-year period of sufficient resources to operate and maintain the existing system and use the remaining funds for capital improvements. 23 U.S.C. 135 under SAFETEA-LU reinforces this policy:

“Financial constraint of the STIP shall be demonstrated and maintained by year and shall include sufficient financial information to demonstrate which projects are to be implemented using current and/or reasonably available revenues, while federally-supported facilities are being adequately operated and maintained…For purposes of transportation operations and maintenance, the STIP shall include financial information containing system-level estimates of costs and revenue sources that are reasonably expected to be available to adequately operate and maintain Federal-aid highways.” (From 23 CFR 450.216 {m}).

Agencies must first operate and maintain (O&M) the existing transportation systems so these estimated costs are deducted from state revenue estimates. Only state revenue can be used for operations and maintenance; federal funds can only be used for capital investment. After the O&M deductions, the remaining federal, state, and local funds are available for capital improvements. Table 4 shows the proposed expenditures for operations and maintenance. The respective MPOs gather information on operations and maintenance from their member agencies and the information is included in the MPO TIPs.

Table 4

MDOT Operations and Maintenance Funding

2008 2009 2010 2011 Total

Operations1 $357,600,000 $347,800,000 $386,300,000 $390,700,000 $1,482,400,000

Maintenance2 $278,600,000 $289,800,000 $301,300,000 $313,400,000 $1,183,100,000

1) Includes administration, buildings/facilities, grants to other departments and debt service. Administration and grants are based on MDOT’s FY 2008 Budget Development Request increased by an estimated inflation rate of 2.4% per FY. Buildings/facilities are estimated at $10 million per FY. Debt service is from debt service schedules.

2) Based on MDOT’s FY 2008 Budget Development Request amount increased 4% per FY.

Source: Forecasted STF Revenue Available for Capital Outlay, BTP Systems Evaluation and Program Development Unit

2008-2011 State Transportation Improvement Program Page 29

CONSTRUCTION IN ADVANCE OF APPORTIONMENT

Construction in Advance of Apportionment, or Advance Construction (AC) as it is called in Michigan, allows a state or local agency to construct a project with state or local money while preserving eligibility for future federal-aid funds. Eligibility means that FHWA has determined that the project technically qualifies for federal-aid, however, no federal funds are committed to the project and there is no guarantee of future federal funds being committed to the project. After an advance construction project is authorized, the state or local agency may convert the project to regular federal-aid funding provided federal funds are available for the project. Advance Construction projects must be included on the approved STIP.

A distinction must be made between local agency and MDOT trunkline advance construction programs. On the state trunkline system, MDOT uses financial AC as a cash flow management tool that provides MDOT with greater flexibility and efficiency in matching federal fund categories to individual projects. As a cash flow tool, AC conversions and other state revenues are used to start new AC projects, thus there is no net impact on the size of MDOT’s program size. MDOT certifies that there is sufficient state revenue to cover all AC authorizations. MDOT maintains a cash-flow model that identifies funding requirements. Estimated AC conversions are shown on the New Resources flow charts on the previous pages.

Local agencies use programmatic AC for local projects to better manage the local program. Local projects that are initially started with non federal funds must be listed in the STIP or MPO TIP in the year of expected construction. The projects must also be listed in the year in which reimbursement with federal funds will be requested.

The flowcharts on the following pages graphically illustrate how the flow of financial resources are available for each year of the STP while using financial AC as a cash flow management tool to meet the commitments for that year. It should be noted that the non-FHWA funds shown are funds from other federal agencies and may include, but are not limited to, Public Lands Highways, Federal Aviation Authority, Bureau of Indian Affairs and transit funds from previous years.

MTF$1,973.8

LocallyRaisedFunds

Misc.Revenue

$48.8

FederalProgram$1,372.2

Local Agency FundsAvailable for Roads

State Trunkline Fund$938.3

Non-Federal Local Programs

STIP and Associated TIPs

$1941.1

TrunklineBonds$82.0

Resources Fiscal Year 2008

(Millions)

Other MTF

$260.5

FOOTNOTES

Other MTF includes MTF Administration, Debt Service on Critical Bridge Bonds, the Recreation Improvement Fund, and the Comprehensive Transportation Fund.

Federally assisted Local Programs include TMA, Small MPO, STP Rural, TEDF C/D, Small Urban, Enhancements, Rail/Hwy Xing, Bridge, CMAQ, State Park Access, and High Priority Project Programs.

Non-federal Local Programs may be included in Metropolitan TIPs at the discretion of the MPO.

Non-federal TEDF is included in MTF revenue going to local agencies.

* Used for cash flow purposes, Advance Construction (AC) conversions equal authorizations with no net effect on program size.

Maintenance

Operations

Maintenance$278.6 Operations

$357.6

LEGEND

Primary Resource

Subordinate Resource

Use which reduces program

Program from which commitments are made

$1051.5

ACConversions*

$126.0

$925.5

$320.7

$681.5

$1,032

$302.1

MTF$2,004.8

LocallyRaisedFunds

Misc.Revenue

$48.8

FederalProgram$1,344.1

Local Agency FundsAvailable for Roads

State Trunkline Fund$945.4

Non-Federal Local Programs

STIP and Associated TIPs

$1619.9

TrunklineBonds$80.0

Resources Fiscal Year 2009

(Millions)

Other MTF

$265.5

FOOTNOTES

Other MTF includes MTF Administration, Debt Service on Critical Bridge Bonds, the Recreation Improvement Fund, and the Comprehensive Transportation Fund.

Federally assisted Local Programs include TMA, Small MPO, STP Rural, TEDF C/D, Small Urban, Enhancements, Rail/Hwy Xing, Bridge, CMAQ, State Park Access, and High Priority Project Programs.

Non-federal Local Programs may be included in Metropolitan TIPs at the discretion of the MPO.

Non-federal TEDF is included in MTF revenue going to local agencies.

* Used for cash flow purposes, Advance Construction (AC) conversions equal authorizations with no net effect on program size.

Maintenance

Operations

Maintenance$289.8 Operations

$347.8

LEGEND

Primary Resource

Subordinate Resource

Use which reduces program

Program from which commitments are made

$993.1

ACConversions*

$125.0

$868.1

$351.0$1,047.7

$307.8

$691.6

MTF$2,036.9

LocallyRaisedFunds

Misc.Revenue

$48.8

FederalProgram$1,389.2

Local Agency FundsAvailable for Roads

State Trunkline Fund$880.9

Non-Federal Local Programs

STIP and Associated TIPs

$1650.2

TrunklineBonds$0.0

Resources Fiscal Year 2010

(Millions)

Other MTF

$344.6

FOOTNOTES

Other MTF includes MTF Administration, Debt Service on Critical Bridge Bonds, the Recreation Improvement Fund, and the Comprehensive Transportation Fund.

Federally assisted Local Programs include TMA, Small MPO, STP Rural, TEDF C/D, Small Urban, Enhancements, Rail/Hwy Xing, Bridge, CMAQ, State Park Access, and High Priority Project Programs.

Non-federal Local Programs may be included in Metropolitan TIPs at the discretion of the MPO.

Non-federal TEDF is included in MTF revenue going to local agencies.

* Used for cash flow purposes, Advance Construction (AC) conversions equal authorizations with no net effect on program size.

Maintenance

Operations

Maintenance$301.3 Operations

$386.3

LEGEND

Primary Resource

Subordinate Resource

Use which reduces program

Program from which commitments are made

$1027.0

ACConversions*

$130.0

$897.0

$362.2

$702.1

$193.3

$1,064.0

MTF$2,074.7

LocallyRaisedFunds

Misc.Revenue

$48.8

FederalProgram$1428.7

Local Agency FundsAvailable for Roads

State Trunkline Fund$900.3

Non-Federal Local Programs

STIP and Associated TIPs

$1679.9

TrunklineBonds$0.0

Resources Fiscal Year 2011

(Millions)

Other MTF

$276.8

FOOTNOTES

Other MTF includes MTF Administration, Debt Service on Critical Bridge Bonds, the Recreation Improvement Fund, and the Comprehensive Transportation Fund.

Federally assisted Local Programs include TMA, Small MPO, STP Rural, TEDF C/D, Small Urban, Enhancements, Rail/Hwy Xing, Bridge, CMAQ, State Park Access, and High Priority Project Programs.

Non-federal Local Programs may be included in Metropolitan TIPs at the discretion of the MPO.

Non-federal TEDF is included in MTF revenue going to local agencies.

* Used for cash flow purposes, Advance Construction (AC) conversions equal authorizations with no net effect on program size.

Maintenance

Operations

Maintenance$313.4 Operations

$390.7

LEGEND

Primary Resource

Subordinate Resource

Use which reduces program

Program from which commitments are made

$1054.8

ACConversions*

$137

$917.8

$373.9

$714.5

$1,083.4

$196.2

2008-2011 State Transportation Improvement Program Page 34

FINANCIAL CONSTRAINT

This plan was developed using the best available federal, state and local revenue information. As mentioned earlier, the total state and federal investment in the state trunkline system for the four year period, including both capital and maintenance programs, is expected to be over six billion dollars. This revenue provides the basis for the estimates in the financial constraint tables at the end of this section.

The STIP and the MPO TIPs contain all federally funded state trunkline and local projects and all regionally significant state and local projects regardless of funding source. Non-federally funded local projects that are not regionally significant can be included in the MPO TIPs at the discretion of the MPO.

Some programs, such as safety and heavy maintenance, rely on timely assessment of system condition or operational information to determine projects. Some projects are identified annually through statewide competitive grant programs. Projects for these types of programs will be provided later in the year and are not included in this document at this time. The revenue for these programs is included in the revenue estimates. The Small Urban and Rural Task Force Programs are shown as

line items on the Rural Fiscal Constraint Demonstration projects listing.

23 U.S.C. 135 under SAFETEA-LU allows “projects that are not considered to be of appropriate

scale for individual identification in a given program year may be grouped by function, work type,

and/or geographic area.” (From 23 CFR 450.216 {j}) In Michigan these groupings are called General Program Accounts or GPAs. These projects:

1. Cannot be regionally significant. 2. Must be air quality neutral (no capacity expansion). 3. Must be an environmental categorical exclusion. 4. Must be based on a list of projects. 5. GPAs within a Metropolitan Area Boundary (MAB) require MPO agreement.

MDOT currently uses 10 GPAs for state trunkline and local projects as shown below.

State Trunkline GPAs (6): Road Capital Preventive Maintenance; Bridge Capital Preventive/Scheduled Maintenance; Traffic and Safety; Trunkline Railroad Crossings; Enhancements; and Preliminary Engineering and Right of Way

Local GPAs (4): Bridge; Highway; Safety; Rail Safety Enhancements

Information on the project selection process and work type activities for GPAs can be found in Appendix H.

On the financial constraint tables (Table 5 and Table 6 at the end of this section), Estimated Federal

Revenue shows the estimated federal-aid resources. Estimated Non-Federal Revenue includes all state and local matching funds other than federal-aid. Total Estimated Revenue is the total of federal and non-federal revenue. Total New Commitments is the total estimated cost of the proposed projects listed in the STIP for that revenue source for the fiscal year.

2008-2011 State Transportation Improvement Program Page 35

Basic elements of the demonstration of financial constraint are as follows:

Estimated revenue and proposed commitments are reported by Michigan’s fiscal year and covers the period beginning October 1, 2007 and ending September 30, 2011. Fiscal Year 2008 begins on October 1, 2007.

State and local revenue are combined into one category and called Estimated Non-Federal

Revenue. State and local commitments are combined into one category called Total

Proposed Commitments.

Total proposed commitments cannot exceed total estimated federal, state and local revenue each fiscal year for each MPO’s TIP, for the rural/non-MPO program contained in this document as well as the collective statewide STIP.

Proposed commitments may exceed estimated revenue in a specific funding category.

GPAs are included in the appropriate federal-aid category.

Financial constraint in this document is demonstrated using two tables: one table for the rural, or non-MPO, program and one table for the total statewide program which combines rural/non-MPO financial data with all the MPO TIPs financial data. Individual MPO financial constraint tables are included in each MPO’s TIP and each must demonstrate constraint.

Statewide programs that are truly statewide in nature are included in the rural (non-MPO) table. This includes such programs as Bureau of Highways Training, Weigh Stations - Statewide Capital Needs and DBE Support Services, etc. where the location of the work is unknown or the quantity of work in each location is unknown. Should the program include projects within urbanized area the adjustment is made as required.

Converted advance construct funds are subtracted from the estimated federal funds available

and included as a resource to the State Trunkline Fund.

On the following pages Table 5 demonstrates financial constraint in the rural or non-MPO areas of the state for all the highway and transit projects contained in this report. The remainder of the highway and transit program is contained in the individual MPO TIPs. The transit portion of Table 5 does not show funds in the first funding category because the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5307 projects are located only in MPO areas. The FTA Section 5307 programs are formula distributions to urbanized areas, all of which are part of an MPO.

Table 6 demonstrates financial constraint for the entire program which includes both rural (non-MPO) and MPO programs in their entirety. All MPO tables from the TIPs and the rural/non-MPO table from this document are combined for an overall view of the entire program. Total new resources are equal to or more than total new commitments for each of the four fiscal years.

The financial information in this plan demonstrates that there are sufficient dollars available each fiscal year to deliver the proposed programs and projects contained in this report and the individual MPO TIPs. The financing of the program is fundamentally sound and is based on the best information currently available.

2008 - 2011 State Transportation Improvement Program Page 36

2/11/2008

Highway Fund SourceEstimated

Federal

Revenue

Estimated Non-

Federal

Revenue

Total

Estimated

Revenue

Total

Proposed

Commitments

Interstate Maintenance (IM) $22,615,691 $2,512,855 $25,128,546 $25,128,546

National Highway System (NHS) $58,514,487 $12,642,123 $71,156,610 $71,156,610

Surface Transportation Program (STP) $176,083,697 $49,999,898 $226,083,595 $226,083,595

Bridge (B) $27,281,650 $6,229,443 $33,511,093 $33,511,093

Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality (CMAQ) $2,287,397 $514,115 $2,801,512 $2,801,512

Safety $0 $0 $0 $0

Equity Bonus (EB) $0 $0 $0 $0

Other FHWA $1,076,400 $269,100 $1,345,500 $1,345,500

Non-FHWA $0 $81,595,996 $81,595,996 $81,595,996

Highway Total $287,859,322 $153,763,530 $441,622,852 $441,622,852

Transit Fund Source

Section 5307 UZA Formula $0 $0 $0 $0

Section 5309 Capital $12,000,000 $3,000,000 $15,000,000 $15,000,000

Section 5310 Elderly and Disabled $4,137,967 $1,034,491 $5,172,458 $5,172,458

Section 5311 Non-UZA Formula $16,605,956 $3,597,150 $20,203,106 $20,203,106

Section 5316 Job Access/Reverse Commute $908,737 $908,737 $1,817,474 $1,817,474

Section 5317 New Freedom Initiative $624,990 $624,990 $1,249,980 $1,249,980

Other Federal $0 $0 $0 $0

Transit Total $34,277,650 $9,165,368 $43,443,018 $43,443,018

2/11/2008

Highway Fund SourceEstimated

Federal

Revenue

Estimated Non-

Federal

Revenue

Total

Estimated

Revenue

Total

Proposed

Commitments

Interstate Maintenance (IM) $0 $0 $0 $0

National Highway System (NHS) $43,398,308 $9,623,446 $53,021,754 $53,021,754

Surface Transportation Program (STP) $79,702,350 $17,626,169 $97,328,519 $97,328,519

Bridge (B) $11,737,253 $2,736,628 $14,473,881 $14,473,881

Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality (CMAQ) $292,000 $73,000 $365,000 $365,000

Safety $0 $0 $0 $0

Equity Bonus (EB) $0 $0 $0 $0

Other FHWA $1,337,289 $319,961 $1,657,250 $1,657,250

Non-FHWA $0 $50,831,061 $50,831,061 $50,831,061

Highway Total $136,467,200 $81,210,265 $217,677,465 $217,677,465

Transit Fund Source

Section 5307 UZA Formula $0 $0 $0 $0

Section 5309 Capital $13,000,000 $3,250,000 $16,250,000 $16,250,000

Section 5310 Elderly and Disabled $4,355,117 $1,088,779 $5,443,896 $5,443,896

Section 5311 Non-UZA Formula $17,557,194 $3,802,182 $21,359,376 $21,359,376

Section 5316 Job Access/Reverse Commute $956,250 $956,250 $1,912,500 $1,912,500

Section 5317 New Freedom Initiative $660,703 $660,703 $1,321,406 $1,321,406

Other Federal $0 $0 $0 $0

Transit Total $36,529,264 $9,757,914 $46,287,178 $46,287,178

Notes:

1. Estimated federal revenue is apportionment (not obligation authority) for all phases for each trunkline & local project.

2. Estimated non-federal revenue includes state & local match & other funds for all phases for each trunkline & local project.

3. The FY 2008-2011 STIP reports financial constraint by major federal funding source.

Table 5a

RURAL (NON-MPO) FISCAL CONSTRAINT DEMONSTRATION

FY 2009

FY 2008

2008 - 2011 State Transportation Improvement Program Page 37

2/11/2008

Highway Fund SourceEstimated

Federal

Revenue

Estimated Non-

Federal

Revenue

Total

Estimated

Revenue

Total

Proposed

Commitments

Interstate Maintenance (IM) $24,622,616 $2,735,846 $27,358,462 $27,358,462

National Highway System (NHS) $67,629,430 $13,972,156 $81,601,586 $81,601,586

Surface Transportation Program (STP) $70,757,217 $16,067,255 $86,824,472 $86,824,472

Bridge (B) $9,833,237 $2,458,309 $12,291,546 $12,291,546

Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality (CMAQ) $0 $0 $0 $0

Safety $0 $0 $0 $0

Equity Bonus (EB) $0 $0 $0 $0

Other FHWA $2,154,012 $487,958 $2,641,970 $2,641,970

Non-FHWA $0 $53,649,268 $53,649,268 $53,649,268

Highway Total $174,996,512 $89,370,792 $264,367,304 $264,367,304

Transit Fund Source

Section 5307 UZA Formula $0 $0 $0 $0

Section 5309 Capital $14,000,000 $3,500,000 $17,500,000 $17,500,000

Section 5310 Elderly and Disabled $4,703,526 $1,175,881 $5,879,407 $5,879,407

Section 5311 Non-UZA Formula $18,571,097 $4,018,529 $22,589,626 $22,589,626

Section 5316 Job Access/Reverse Commute $988,763 $988,763 $1,977,526 $1,977,526

Section 5317 New Freedom Initiative $676,560 $676,560 $1,353,120 $1,353,120

Other Federal $0 $0 $0 $0

Transit Total $38,939,946 $10,359,733 $49,299,679 $49,299,679

2/11/2008

Highway Fund SourceEstimated

Federal

Revenue

Estimated Non-

Federal

Revenue

Total

Estimated

Revenue

Total

Proposed

Commitments

Interstate Maintenance (IM) $13,288,441 $1,476,494 $14,764,935 $14,764,935

National Highway System (NHS) $34,045,098 $7,549,399 $41,594,497 $41,594,497

Surface Transportation Program (STP) $94,942,264 $18,835,720 $113,777,984 $113,777,984

Bridge (B) $5,779,712 $728,261 $6,507,973 $6,507,973

Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality (CMAQ) $0 $0 $0 $0

Safety $0 $0 $0 $0

Equity Bonus (EB) $0 $0 $0 $0

Other FHWA $365,000 $91,250 $456,250 $456,250

Non-FHWA $0 $50,920,000 $50,920,000 $50,920,000

Highway Total $148,420,515 $79,601,124 $228,021,639 $228,021,639

Transit Fund Source

Section 5307 UZA Formula $0 $0 $0 $0

Section 5309 Capital $15,000,000 $3,750,000 $18,750,000 $18,750,000

Section 5310 Elderly and Disabled $5,079,808 $1,269,952 $6,349,760 $6,349,760

Section 5311 Non-UZA Formula $19,644,480 $4,247,183 $23,891,663 $23,891,663

Section 5316 Job Access/Reverse Commute $1,022,383 $1,022,383 $2,044,766 $2,044,766

Section 5317 New Freedom Initiative $692,798 $692,798 $1,385,596 $1,385,596

Other Federal $0 $0 $0 $0

Transit Total $41,439,469 $10,982,316 $52,421,785 $52,421,785

Notes:

1. Estimated federal revenue is apportionment (not obligation authority) for all phases for each trunkline & local project.

2. Estimated non-federal revenue includes state & local match & other funds for all phases for each trunkline & local project.

3. The FY 2008-2011 STIP reports financial constraint by major federal funding source.

Table 5b

RURAL (NON-MPO) FISCAL CONSTRAINT DEMONSTRATION (continued)

FY 2011

FY 2010

2008 - 2011 State Transportation Improvement Program Page 38

2/11/2008 (AC Adjusted)

Highway Fund SourceEstimated

Federal

Revenue

Estimated Non-

Federal

Revenue

Total

Estimated

Revenue

Total

Proposed

Commitments

Interstate Maintenance (IM) $265,892,258 $30,172,857 $296,065,115 $296,065,115

National Highway System (NHS) $158,095,646 $33,305,427 $191,401,073 $191,401,073

Surface Transportation Program (STP) $463,960,197 $119,577,030 $583,537,227 $580,405,491

Bridge (B) $136,495,217 $32,745,204 $169,240,421 $169,129,421

Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality (CMAQ) $48,891,978 $8,142,068 $57,034,046 $57,034,046

Safety $6,560,000 $1,755,000 $8,315,000 $8,315,000

Equity Bonus (EB) $21,680,173 $5,553,558 $27,233,731 $27,261,731

Other FHWA $117,254,418 $36,673,822 $153,928,240 $151,953,240

Non-FHWA $3,123,690 $195,732,888 $198,856,578 $198,856,578

Highway Total $1,095,953,577 $589,657,854 $1,685,611,431 $1,680,421,695

Transit Fund Source

Section 5307 UZA Formula $81,165,193 $47,679,531 $128,844,724 $128,844,724

Section 5309 Capital $40,106,355 $9,807,588 $49,913,943 $49,913,943

Section 5310 Elderly and Disabled $7,975,958 $2,039,626 $10,015,584 $10,015,584

Section 5311 Non-UZA Formula $18,206,147 $43,132,632 $61,338,779 $61,338,779

Section 5316 Job Access/Reverse Commute $1,912,737 $1,909,737 $3,822,474 $3,822,474

Section 5317 New Freedom Initiative $852,426 $681,849 $1,534,275 $1,534,275

Other Federal $0 $0 $0 $0

Transit Total $150,218,816 $105,250,963 $255,469,779 $255,469,779

2/11/2008 (AC Adjusted)

Highway Fund SourceEstimated

Federal

Revenue

Estimated Non-

Federal

Revenue

Total

Estimated

Revenue

Total

Proposed

Commitments

Interstate Maintenance (IM) $180,613,951 $15,065,715 $195,679,666 $151,063,177

National Highway System (NHS) $222,793,215 $26,302,332 $249,095,547 $146,749,285

Surface Transportation Program (STP) $276,317,142 $48,710,154 $325,027,296 $253,672,522

Bridge (B) $145,386,564 $10,516,358 $155,902,922 $71,212,389

Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality (CMAQ) $75,695,820 $323,000 $76,018,820 $1,615,000

Safety $43,845,112 $0 $43,845,112 $0

Equity Bonus (EB) $79,079,072 $8,627,856 $87,706,928 $39,580,279

Other FHWA $194,810,147 $9,810,966 $204,621,113 $25,606,717

Non-FHWA $11,253,350 $77,464,711 $88,718,061 $87,851,061

Highway Total $1,104,794,373 $321,821,092 $1,426,615,465 $777,350,430

Transit Fund Source

Section 5307 UZA Formula $62,290,808 $24,282,837 $86,573,645 $86,573,645

Section 5309 Capital $25,484,000 $6,227,000 $31,711,000 $31,711,000

Section 5310 Elderly and Disabled $4,822,117 $1,265,779 $6,087,896 $6,087,896

Section 5311 Non-UZA Formula $19,199,702 $44,911,412 $64,111,114 $64,111,114

Section 5316 Job Access/Reverse Commute $1,384,395 $1,384,395 $2,768,790 $2,768,790

Section 5317 New Freedom Initiative $884,967 $789,740 $1,674,707 $1,674,707

Other Federal $250,000 $62,500 $312,500 $312,000

Transit Total $114,315,989 $78,923,663 $193,239,652 $193,239,152

Notes:

1. Estimated federal revenue is apportionment (not obligation authority) for all phases for each trunkline & local project.

2. Estimated non-federal revenue includes state & local match & other funds for all phases for each trunkline & local project.

3. The FY 2008-2011 STIP reports financial constraint by major federal funding source.

Table 6a

STATEWIDE FISCAL CONSTRAINT DEMONSTRATION

FY 2009

FY 2008

2008 - 2011 State Transportation Improvement Program Page 39

2/11/2008 (AC Adjusted)

Highway Fund SourceEstimated

Federal

Revenue

Estimated Non-

Federal

Revenue

Total

Estimated

Revenue

Total

Proposed

Commitments

Interstate Maintenance (IM) $186,393,597 $13,692,750 $200,086,347 $137,184,496

National Highway System (NHS) $229,922,598 $16,851,942 $246,774,540 $100,465,586

Surface Transportation Program (STP) $285,159,291 $48,604,836 $333,764,127 $227,304,208

Bridge (B) $150,038,934 $6,312,241 $156,351,175 $38,266,035

Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality (CMAQ) $78,118,086 $0 $78,118,086 $0

Safety $45,248,156 $0 $45,248,156 $0

Equity Bonus (EB) $81,609,602 $7,913,856 $89,523,458 $29,939,279

Other FHWA $201,044,072 $2,231,958 $203,276,030 $11,361,970

Non-FHWA $7,816,855 $81,141,314 $88,958,169 $87,222,169

Highway Total $1,135,351,191 $306,748,897 $1,442,100,088 $631,743,743

Transit Fund Source

Section 5307 UZA Formula $72,635,015 $26,878,102 $99,513,117 $99,513,117

Section 5309 Capital $23,500,000 $5,854,500 $29,354,500 $29,354,500

Section 5310 Elderly and Disabled $4,829,526 $1,266,881 $6,096,407 $6,096,407

Section 5311 Non-UZA Formula $20,246,570 $48,004,825 $68,251,395 $68,251,395

Section 5316 Job Access/Reverse Commute $1,435,782 $1,435,782 $2,871,564 $2,871,564

Section 5317 New Freedom Initiative $910,774 $810,274 $1,721,048 $1,721,048

Other Federal $250,000 $62,500 $312,500 $312,000

Transit Total $123,807,667 $84,312,864 $208,120,531 $208,120,031

2/11/2008 (AC Adjusted)

Highway Fund SourceEstimated

Federal

Revenue

Estimated Non-

Federal

Revenue

Total

Estimated

Revenue

Total

Proposed

Commitments

Interstate Maintenance (IM) $192,358,193 $9,646,599 $202,004,792 $96,465,986

National Highway System (NHS) $237,280,121 $11,088,099 $248,368,220 $61,153,439

Surface Transportation Program (STP) $294,284,388 $67,488,438 $361,772,826 $293,129,903

Bridge (B) $154,840,180 $2,096,861 $156,937,041 $17,243,357

Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality (CMAQ) $80,617,865 $0 $80,617,865 $0

Safety $46,696,097 $0 $46,696,097 $0

Equity Bonus (EB) $84,221,110 $5,661,856 $89,882,966 $27,000,279

Other FHWA $207,477,482 $2,191,250 $209,668,732 $10,956,250

Non-FHWA $5,589,166 $66,482,782 $72,071,948 $72,071,948

Highway Total $1,166,364,601 $301,655,885 $1,468,020,486 $578,021,162

Transit Fund Source

Section 5307 UZA Formula $72,638,242 $26,285,755 $98,923,997 $98,923,997

Section 5309 Capital $23,324,000 $5,831,000 $29,155,000 $29,155,000

Section 5310 Elderly and Disabled $5,402,808 $1,410,952 $6,813,760 $6,813,760

Section 5311 Non-UZA Formula $21,363,802 $50,644,614 $72,008,416 $72,008,416

Section 5316 Job Access/Reverse Commute $1,473,082 $1,473,082 $2,946,164 $2,946,164

Section 5317 New Freedom Initiative $929,016 $828,516 $1,757,532 $1,757,532

Other Federal $250,000 $62,500 $312,500 $312,000

Transit Total $125,380,950 $86,536,419 $211,917,369 $211,916,869

Notes:

1. Estimated federal revenue is apportionment (not obligation authority) for all phases for each trunkline & local project.

2. Estimated non-federal revenue includes state & local match & other funds for all phases for each trunkline & local project.

3. The FY 2008-2011 STIP reports financial constraint by major federal funding source.

Table 6b

STATEWIDE FISCAL CONSTRAINT DEMONSTRATION (continued)

FY 2011

FY 2010

2008-2011 State Transportation Improvement Program Page 40

PROJECTS

In August 2006, MDOT hosted a two day workshop involving transportation planning staff from Michigan’s MPOs, MDOT and the Federal Highway Administration’s Michigan Division Office (FHWA-MI). The goal of the workshop was to agree to a uniform format to display individual project data for all TIPs and the STIP in order to accomplish the following objectives:

Make it easier to find projects in the approved document.

Improve the ability to update, monitor, and maintain STIP/TIP documents.

Improve the efficiency of the development and approval process.

Enhance the ability to produce summary tables.

Align the entire STIP/TIP development and maintenance process for automation.

A uniform project data listing format was agreed to by all stakeholders and has been implemented with the FY 2008-2011 STIP and associated MPO TIPs. Table 7, listed below, describes the information that is provided for each project.

Table 7

Project Information

Field Name Description

Fiscal Year Federal (and State of Michigan) fiscal year in which the project will be obligated.

County The name of the county in which the project will take place.

Jurisdiction Responsible Act 51 agency or MPO for project implementation.

Project Name Route, street name or general name of project.

Limits Project termini or service area (area-wide, region-wide, city-wide or county-wide).

Length The total length of project in miles.

Primary Work Type A brief standardized description of the primary type of work. See Appendix I.Appendix J provides more information for each primary work type.

Project Description A more detailed description of the scope of work.

Phase Phase refers to the stage of work being done. The following list describes the stage of work for each phase:

EPE Early Preliminary Engineering and Studies PE Preliminary Engineering ROW Right of Way CON Construction T-Cap Transit Capital T-Ops Transit Operations

2008-2011 State Transportation Improvement Program Page 41

Table 7 (continued)

Project Information (continued)

Field Name Description

Advance Construct AC year: the year the phase is being implemented using state or local fundsACC year: the year the phase is expected to be converted to federal funds (year of Advance Construct Conversion)

Fiscal Year Federal (and State of Michigan) fiscal year in which the project will be obligated.

Federal Cost ($1000s)

The total estimated federal amount planned for obligation.

Federal Fund Source The acronym or funding code for the primary federal fund source. See Appendix K for a list of all funding codes. Any additional federal fund sources and amounts are identified in the Comments column.

State Cost ($1000s)

The total estimated state amount planned for obligation.

State Fund Source The acronym or funding code for the primary state fund source. See Appendix K for a list of all funding codes. Any additional state fund sources and amounts are identified in the Comments column.

Local Cost ($1000s)

The total estimated local amount planned for obligation.

Local Fund Source The acronym or funding code for the primary local fund source. See Appendix K for a list of all funding codes. Any additional local fund sources and amounts are identified in the Comments column.

Total Cost ($1000s)

The total estimated cost for the project. planned for obligation from all federal, state and local sources.

MDOT Job Number Electronically assigned project identification number.

Local ID Number (Optional)

Unique number defined by MPO or rural agency. May be local priority number and fiscal year.

MPO/Rural Approval Date

Date of most recent local agency approval action on named project.

Amendment Type Specifies the primary amendment type: Scope, Add, Delete or Cost.

Air Quality Exempt means the named project does not require air quality analysis. Non-Exempt means the project requires air quality analysis. Not Applicable means that the named project is not within a federally designated non-attainment or maintenance area.

Comments Narrative. Addition information, notations or cross-references to data elsewhere in the document.

The following project list contains rural or non-MPO projects outside of Metropolitan Area Boundaries; projects that fall within MPO boundaries are contained in the respective MPO TIP.

The project list is organized by fiscal year, county and jurisdiction.